ABSTRACT
Background: While widely used for the treatment of chronic pelvic pain, limited data exists on efficacy of gabapentin, especially in the subgroup of women suffering from chronic pelvic pain without a known diagnosis, such as endometriosis. Objective: This study aimed to assess the efficacy of gabapentin when administered to women with chronic pelvic pain without another diagnosis. Study Design: We performed a Systematic Review and Meta Analysis including all controlled clinical trials addressing the use of gabapentin for the treatment of chronic pelvic pain without another diagnosis. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.Gov, MEDLINE, and The Cochrane Library from inception of each database to April 30, 2021. We included all the studies that fulfilled the following criteria: (1) population: women suffering from chronic pelvic pain without another identified diagnosis (such as endometriosis); (2) intervention: gabapentin (regardless of the dosage); (3) comparator:placebo; (4) outcomes: pain score (visual analog scale) after 3 months and pain score (visual analog scale) after 6 months as primary outcomes; and (5) study design: we only included randomized or controlled clinical trials. Our exclusion criteria included (1) uncontrolled clinical trials, (2) studies that did not report data or measures for any of our selected outcomes, (3) studies that included patients with surgically or clinically diagnosed endometriosis, or (4) studies with no full-text manuscript available. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We analyzed dichotomous outcomes as percentages and totals, whereas continuous outcomes were analyzed using mean difference, standard deviations, and relative 95% confidence intervals using the inverse variance method. Results: We included 4 placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials. Analysis was hindered because half of the studies (n=2) used the visual analog scale pain score and the other half (n=2) used the numerical rating scale. The analysis showed that when compared with the placebo, gabapentin significantly lowered the visual analog scale pain score at 3 months (mean difference, 0.79; 1.23 to 0.35; P=.005) and 6 months (mean difference, 1.68; 2.30 to 1.05; P=.001) and the numerical rating scale pain score at 3 months (mean difference, 0.20; 0.25 to 0.15; P=.001). However, in terms of the numerical rating scale pain score after 6 months, the 2 groups showed no significant difference (mean difference, 0.27; 0.80 to 0.26; P=.32). CONCLUSION: Gabapentin may hold benefit for the management of chronic pelvic pain, with significant improvement in pain seen in both scales at 3 months when compared with the placebo, but only in the visual analog scale group at 6 months of usage. Secondary to the differences in the nature of the 2 scales, a further weighted combined analysis was not possible.
ABSTRACT
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant clinical trials from full-text, scientific journal archives to assess the efficacy of hyoscine for the management of pain during in-office hysteroscopy (OH) procedures. Cochrane CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.Gov, MEDLINE, PubMed, SCOPUS and the Web of Science were searched for all clinical trials that matched our search criteria. A full assessment of bias was made using the Cochrane Group tool-set. The following outcomes were included: visual analogue scale (VAS) score for postoperative pain, postoperative need for analgesia, and procedure time. In the case of homogeneous data, the analysis was performed using a fixed effects system, and the random effects system was used with heterogeneous data. Inclusion criteria included only randomized clinical trials, and interventions that included patients receiving hyoscine-N-Butyl Bromide during OH, regardless of dose or mode of administration, and compared this with placebo. Three clinical trials were included. The actual mean difference (MD) of the VAS pain score showed no significant difference between hyoscine or placebo [MD: -0.28 (-1.08, 0.52), (p=0.49)]. For postoperative analgesia, the overall MD showed no significant difference between hyoscine or placebo [MD: 0.43 (0.16, 1.14), (p=0.09)]. For procedure time, the combined effect estimate failed to show any significant difference between hyoscine and placebo [MD: -0.66 (-2.77, 1.44) (p=0.54)]. Contrary to previously published data, our meta-analysis using the latest available RCTs fails to show hyoscine as being effective in reducing pain or the need for other forms of anesthesia in OH.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: We set out to evaluate whether the instillation of bupivacaine versus a saline solution into the peritoneal cavity at time of laparoscopic gynecologic surgery will reduce postoperative pain and postoperative opioid consumption. DATA SOURCES: We searched six databases: Web of Science, SCOPUS, Cochrane CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.Gov, MEDLINE and PubMed. Our search strategy had no restriction on time or languages and included all studies that met our search algorithm up to March of 2021. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: We included only randomized trials that met our search strategy for the outcomes of 1) pain intensity 24 hours after surgery, 2) pain intensity 6 hours after surgery, and 3) length of hospital stay. TABULATION INTEGRATION AND RESULTS: We analyzed continuous data using mean difference (MD) with relative 95% confidence interval (CI). We included 8 randomized clinical trials. We found that intraperitoneal bupivacaine showed significant difference from the saline group regarding pain intensity 24 hours after surgery (MD= -0.73 [-1.10, -0.36]) (P = 0.01) and pain intensity 6 hours after surgery (MD= -1.12 [-2.22, -0.02]) (P = 0.05). Overall, patients allocated to the placebo group seemed to need other analgesics earlier than patients allocated to the bupivacaine group (MD=145.08 [51.37, 238.79] (P = 0.02)). There was no significant difference regarding the length of hospital stay (MD= -0.44 [-1.44, 0.56]) (P = 0.39). CONCLUSION: Bupivacaine significantly reduced the visual analog pain score for pain compared with that of the placebo at 6 and 24 hours postoperatively. There was no significant difference in hospital stay. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42021254268.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To review all high quality available evidence regarding the effect of intraoperative bupivacaine 24 hours (or 8.9 half-lives) after intraoperative administration at time of gynaecologic surgery and to ascertain whether a second mechanism of action, beyond the initial prevention of sodium channel depolarization and blockade of nerve impulses, may be occurring. DATA SOURCES: We searched all major databases with an algorithm designed to include all randomized trials that used any form of local bupivacaine, regardless of dose or route of administration, at the time of any gynaecologic surgery and compared its use with saline placebo. RESULTS: As expected, we found that bupivacaine showed a significant improvement for all gynaecologic surgeries with respect to pain intensity at 6 hours after surgery when compared with a saline group (mean difference [MD] -1.28; 95% CI -1.96 to -0.61], P = 0.07). We also found a significant difference at 24 hours after surgery, giving evidence to the possibility of a second mechanism of action (MD -0.57; 95% CI -1.10 to -0.05], P = 0.01). Further subgroup analysis for pain levels at 24 hours showed significant decreases in pain for the laparoscopy (MD -0.74; 95% CI -0.93 to -0.54, P < 0.01) and laparotomy (MD -2.60; 95% CI -2.93 to -2.27, P < 0.01)) subgroups but not for the vaginal hysterectomy (MD 0.20; 95% CI -0.69 to 1.09, P = 0.66) or prolapse surgery (MD -0.11; 95% CI -0.41 to 0.19, P = 0.48) subgroups. There was no significant difference with respect to the length of hospital stay (MD -0.11; 95% CI -0.59 to 0.38, P = 0.67). CONCLUSION: As expected, bupivacaine significantly reduced visual analog pain scores when compared with placebo at 6 hours after surgery, but also showed a significant difference at 24 hours after surgery, giving evidence of a second mechanism of action following the initial sodium channel blockade.